Eleven District 150 schools will split $1.3 million earmarked for underprivileged students under a plan still being finalized by school officials.
Okay, remember those numbers: 11, $1.3 million.
But the plan, nearly doubling the number of schools designated as Title I, comes at a cost to 13 other schools within the district already receiving the grants.
Ah, so 13 other schools already receive Title 1 funding. If we take that number, plus the aforementioned 11 schools that will be added, we come up with 24 schools total. Got it.
Despite the district increasing the number of Title I schools from 15 to 24, it won’t receive any additional money.
Wait a minute. Now they’re saying 15 schools already receive Title I funding, but the total is still only going to be 24, which is an increase of 9. This must be a typo; I’m sure they meant to say “from 13 to 24.” Maybe the editor will catch it before the paper copy goes to press.
Essentially, it would redistribute the same $7.5 million it receives annually.
What? How did we get from $1.3 million to $7.5 million? From the article, it appears the $7.5 million is the total funding District 150 gets, and of that amount, $1.3 million is going to be going to the 11 additional schools. But how is that figured? How did they arrive at that number?
Enrollment at the 13 additional schools represents a combined 5,000 students.
I thought it was 11 additional schools. Thirteen was the number of schools “already receiving the grants,” wasn’t it? This is so confusing!
Of the little more than $7.5 million District 150 receives, $2.2 million is set aside for pre-school, $755,000 for professional development, $75,500 for parental involvement and $255,000 for administrative needs. The remaining $3.5 million goes directly to the schools.
$2.2 million, plus $755,000, plus $75,500, plus $255,000, plus $3.5 million equals $6,785,500. Where does the other “little more than” $714,500 go? That ain’t chump change, especially on an annual basis!
Not being factored in is some $4.4 million in federal stimulus money headed for Title I programs at District 150.
Good, because none of the other numbers are adding up anyway. Does anybody at 1 News Plaza have a calculator?
pupil/admin ratio – 168 to 1, pupil/teacher ratio 12 -1. If you have 1100 teachers and 99% do their job, how many should be seeking new employment each year? How do teachers “police” their own? How many have been removed per year over the last 5 years for non-performance? 10 years? All the attention here seems to place the faults of Dist. 150 on administration. With 1100 teachers for 13,000 plus students, are significant cuts necessary there also? Didn’t the teachers just announce a lawsuit over class size? 12-1?? What do all these non-teaching teachers do? Monitor tenure and retirement bonuses and incentives? I think we need a blade with two sharp edges, not one!
I’d love for you to go to any school in the district and find one which isn’t a special education room and has only twelve students in it. It certainly doesn’t exist in a Title I school.
Which shell is the pea under?
Oh the teacher student ratio…. here is how it works… at any given time there are (let’s for the sake of numbers ) 20 teachers at a school with 240 students. In each class there are 24 students and 1 teacher. That takes care of 10 teachers… where are the other 10 teachers? On break.
So if I understand the article, some of this Title I funding will be going to Edison Schools? Does anyone else have a problem with this?
Let’s wait until October of next year and then do a FOIA to ask how many students are actually in each non-Special Ed class. If 150 wanted to be honest :), they would provide two sets of figures: one for special ed classes and one for regular classes. Then we could discuss the reality of class size. My guess is that the primary and middle schools will have consistently larger class sizes. My guess is that many high school classes will be large, but some classes will be smaller because of the way students are scheduled. Some teachers will have larger class sizes than others.
Thanks for doing the math, C.J. Are the figures 150 provided deception or error–not good either way. I’m finding it diffcult to believe that increasing the number of Title I classes won’t increase Titile I funding.
Kcdad: your 20 teachers to 240 students–did you just make those figures up or do they represent the numbers at a particular school?
I have a problem with bonuses to teachers and administrators (6% each year for 4 years – COMPOUNDED) to inflate pensions that are bankrupting us, not to mention all the other perks not found in the real world. Time for a reality check…….
Perhaps “The Reid Technique” can be employed?
http://www.reid.com/
“If 150 wanted to be honest :), they would provide two sets of figures: one for special ed classes and one for regular classes.”
It’s not just special ed. There are also, for example, underenrolled IB classes that MUST be offered for the diploma program to be complete.
This information is readily available from building principals — or at least it was when I was asking as a candidate, so I assume it is to anyone who asks. The principals were quite eager to share their frustration at having an “official” ratio of, say, 20:1, so they couldn’t hire more teachers, but that ratio included special ed classes, or an IB French class with 3 students (invented example), or whatever, and their “real” average class size, for normal classes, might be 25:1.
That said, District 150 DOES have a “bad” employee-to-student ratio compared to peer districts in Illinois (too many employees (and buildings) for the number of students we have, compared to peer districts) … but those numbers include all employees from janitors to teachers to administrators, and I have not yet seen them broken down to see if that’s an across-the-board number, or if we’re heavy in particular areas. I imagine it’d be easy enough to locate the numbers for Peoria and peer districts and break them down myself, given enough time. (Flippy, however, is making some demands and I think I’m about to disappear for a couple few weeks.)
Has Stowell changed his moniker to “More Numbers”? Are you sure it’s four years? I thought it was the last two years. At least, when I retired, teachers had to give only a 2-year advance notice of retirement. I’m sure someone will straighten me out because as I’ve said before I’m not good at the money issues. However, I thought that the state pays our pensions–at least, 150 doesn’t sign my retirement checks. Again as Wolfmeyer pointed out, the retirement incentives are offered so that the district can higher cheaper replacements. The district didn’t provide incentives to be nice to retirees.
I wouldn’t say this is clear reporting by the PJStar, but the number of schools issue isn’t that hard to figure out:
15 schools get it today – included in that number is Tyng and Kingman, which will close, so 13 of the “original” will get monies next year, with 11 “new” added to the list for 24 total.
As for the $700k difference between the $7.5MM reported as received vs the $6.8MM itemized as being spent, hopefully there is a simple explanation. Geez, they made it a point to say $75k was for parental involvement but can’t explain the $700k? I’m hoping that should have been $750k for parental involvement, rather than $75k, and thus just a typo.
I agree that I can’t figure out how they determined, both past and projected, how much each school should get. Title I is based on the number of children receiving free/reduced lunch, so shouldn’t it just be based on that headcount? It’s clearly not.
However, I that that there is a “missing” point of the story. A school is eligible for Title I, a federally funded program, if the school has more than 40% of its population defined as “low income”. So schools like Central, Woodruff, Coolidge, TJ and Von Steuben, for example, all have OVER 70% low income, which contributes to the total amount the district receives from Title I, but the administration chose not to give them 1 cent last year, and presumably for several years. It seems the administration chose a 75% low income as its cutoff, even though 40% is the federal cutoff. Its just now rectifying that inequity, although again, I can’t figure out how they divvy it up now (though it is pretty close to being based purely on $xx per low income student)
This is a problem when the local press is on a budget. The reporters are stretched so thin it is hard for them to get to know any one subject matter intimately much less understand it well enough to ask the probing questions necessary to get to the crux of the issue. If the right questions had been asked (by more then just bloggers) could we have diverted some of the chaos that exists today? Ignorance and apathy -two powerful enemies and very much threatening our civilization…
That’s hilarious, CJ!
Jon: You raise a very interesting question as to why District 150 has, in the past, chosen 75% for poverty instead of the federal guideline of 40% poverty for schools eligible for Title I money. I know that early childhood education is important–but it also is not mandatory, so shouldn’t all Title I money be going to the K-12 students instead of (what I have heard) is about 2 million dollars to Valeska–especially, since, I believe, there is a question as to how many non-poverty level students might be going to Valeska. I don’t understand why Title I money hasn’t been distributed especially to Woodruff and Peoria High. I question why Edison schools should get more.
Also, why would you think $750k would be an appropriate figure for parental involvement activities? I know that at Manual parental involvement money was spent on meals for parents to get them to come to open house, etc. Also, I believe some of it might have been spent on redocorating and furnishing a “Community Room” for parents–but in my years there parents didn’t come, so it was a room for administrators and counselors to meet for meetings. Maybe the primary schools use the money more wisely. I think the activities would have to relate very directly to providing the students with educational opportunities–or preparing parents to help their children with educational efforts.
Maybe the $750,000 is for salaries for the District’s Parent Partnership Leaders?
Each Title I school has identified a leader within their individual school to help lead the charge of family involvement. The District’s Title 1 website:
http://www.peoriatitlei.org/dist150/parentalinvolvement.html
Parental involvement programs can be costly to run – and yes you sometimes have to offer a meal and a activity to get parents in the building. If that is what it takes-so be it.
Diane: Long before bloggers — community activists would go and raise the questions and the administration would dodge the question or give a meaningless answer. Same old story. Blogs have the ability to rally interested parties around issues. The internet and email has become a powerful tool for many previously voiceless people. The issues are complex and you might agree from your own experience, it takes time and effort to become versed and articulate on a particular issue.
Emerge: I just took a quick look at the list of District’s Parent Partnership Leaders and looked up their names in the teachers’ directory. I believe they are all teachers, so I would be curious to know how much they are earning for this job. The Manual person–who is very dedicated–is a home facilitator, so his job would definitely overlap with this Title I position (his job may even be a Title I job). I am not at all opposed to using Title I money for parental involvement–the kind that produces academic results. Quite honestly, such efforts weren’t all that visible at Manual–maybe I just wasn’t aware. I already do enough FOIAing of information, but it would be interesting to ask exactly what parental activities have been paid for with Title I money at each school so that parent groups (PTA), teachers, etc., could better evaluate their effectiveness.
As with all efforts for transparency, I have long believed that much, much more transparency is needed to inform teachers, parents, the public about how taxpayer Title I dollars are used. I think we’d all be amazed–and appalled.
diane-
this particular reporter reports almost exclusively on the school district so he should be plenty well versed in the topics.
Sharon – Can’t someone jump in without being accused of being a nefarious board member? 😉 . As a Dist. 150 taxpayer, I’d like to know why we shouldn’t challenge a 12-1 teacher ratio as much as a 16-1 administrator ratio? Aren’t my questions worthy of your insight?
I am confused, I thought that parent facilitators did not have to have a four year degree and that they visited the homes of truant students to work with the student and parent to provide ways to increase attendance. They were in the same salary category as aides.
More Numbers: Sorry, didn’t mean to offend. Do you really believe there are only twelve students in a class in District 150? Certainly, as a taxpayer I would also challenge classes of 12–in fact, as a teacher I considered classes of 12 tp be too small. However, over 25, especially 30+ are too many for today’s classrooms. Several of us on this blog have challenged the accuracy of the 12-1 ratio. Don’t you consider our first-hand knowledge worthy of belief?
Angelwithorns: I am not certain as to the educational requirements for home facilitators. I didn’t know anything about Parent Partnership Leaders–all I know is that most of them on the list(all that I checked) that Emerge provided are listed as “certified” employess in the District address book.
It’s not a 12-1 ratio. Aren’t there nearly 1100 teachers? 13000 students? It doesn’t appear to be an efficient use of the available labor. I don’t want to get into the effective and will be out for the evening soon, but would welcome a response to the self-policing and # of under-performing teachers that have been asked to find alternate employment. All the focus on admin and no honest self-reflection of the teachers roll makes me leary of your real motives. Call me a skeptic. I’ll trust your numbers as much as admin’s right now. Our students deserve the most they can get from all who are involved.
More Numbers: Again in your statistics you are ignoring or jumping to conclusions without knowing how many of the 1100 teachers teach special education and how many of the 13000 students are in special education classes–those figures can certainly skew the statistics and make class size assumptions very misleading.
Even if a teacher were to have only 12 students in a class, that doesn’t mean a teacher is underperforming. In my own experience, I would have had to prepare just as much for 10 students as I did for 30–and presenting the material, etc., would take as much time no matter how small or large the class. However, the number of discipline problems of large classes would cause a teacher to be asked to “overperform.” If if you were Jim or just the skeptic you state you are–I don’t think you can judge anyone’s “self-reflection.” Actually, I have no idea what you mean by “no honest self-reflection of the teachers roll.” Do you mean “roll” as in a list of students in a class or “role” as in “a part played.”
I also am very curious as to what you mean by “self-policing.” Do you mean an individual should police himself/herself? Or do you mean the union should “police” or evaluate teachers, etc.? I believe that only administrators have any authority to evaluate teachers–at the high school level only principals, assistant principals, and deans are allowed to evaluate teachers. I can assure you that administrators often do ask individual teachers their opinions of non-tenured teachers. I can also assure you that teachers do not always protect teachers whom they believe to be weak teahers. The union’s role is to represent (not necessarily protect) tenured teachers–not non-tenured teachers. However, I can assure you that individual teachers (union members though they are) do not always protect their fellow teachers. Some–as in any profession–may even go as far as to complain to “bosses” about another teacher to make themselves look good.
This year many high-performing first, second, and third year teachers (and probably some under performing teahers) have been asked to find alternative employment because of 150’s budget cuts.
You can’t just take the number of students in a building and divide it out by the number of teachers. In primary, you have prep teachers, reading coaches, and other “specials” teachers who do not have a classroom of kids. These people are certified teachers who will be counted for a total number but shouldn’t be included when trying to get a students per class number. I’ve said before that Kingman’s report card states there is an average class size of 13 and it is in NO way a statement of fact. Anyone who wants to get an idea of the “real deal” needs to walk themselves down to a school and take a walk through some classrooms. Even if 25 students per class doesn’t sound like a lot, go on in the room and see how long you can keep their attention on 24 x 5 or learning the scientific method. “Please don’t kick, Johnny.” “Please come back in the room, Suzie.” “Let’s not hang out the window, Frankie.” “Jenny, can we not put up our middle finger during class today?” “Why did you tear up your morning work, Bobby?”…… And that’s the first ten minutes.
More Numbers: Forgot to ask, why did you call Jim a “nefarious” board member (or was that an attempt at a smiley face after the word)? I might disagree with Jim on occasion but I haven’t considered him to be extremely wicked. Also, I just caught your “leary of your real motives” comment. Would that be my motives? And what could possibly be my “motives” (and why would I hide any motives I might have)when I truly have nothing to win or lose any more where 150 is concerned. Strangely enough–and, I guess, hard to believe–150 was extremely good to me–I have never had any real personal complaints. Right now, visiting the PJS “Manual Memories” section on their website, I am reminded how (and why) really happy I was there for so many years.
Don’t get mad at me for asking this, but what is the justification for all these “specials” teachers that are allegedly throwing off the averages? Are they all necessary? Can any cuts be made here?
According to the Illinois Interactive Report Card:
You have to admit, the average class size does look a little out of whack when compared to other districts, don’t you think? The state average class size for high school is 19.6, by the way.
Here is something that perhaps we can all use in many different arenas …. applications……
http://www.arbinger.com/en/home.html
Our materials introduce people to a little-known, but pervasive, problem: self-deception. Our methodologies help people overcome it.
Clearly, as long as the problem of not knowing one has a problem remains … so will all other problems.
Come in and learn how we help individuals and organizations see radically new ways to understand and to solve problems. To find solutions that help them live more happily and work more productively.
http://www.arbinger.com/en/selfdeception.html
How does 150 manage to have smaller average class sizes than the other two, but about the same pupil to teacher ratio? Why can’t Pekin and East Peoria have average class sizes similar to Peoria?
C.J.–These numbers do look weird. I honestly don’t know what “reality” is. A teacher sitting with 30+ kids in her/his class is bound to argue with the averages. All I know is that for as long as I can remember teachers have argued with the way averages are figured. If the district wants to provide honest figures, the district should offer 2 class size averages–one for special ed and one for regular classes. If the district wants to justify increased class sizes by including special ed in the averages–then that’s dishonest. Regular class averages will still be thrown off at the high school because of some smaller enriched class numbers–but the numbers won’t be as off as they are now. Also, the ratio of teachers to students should be based on certified teachers only–because every classroom has only one certified teacher. The numbers of the “extra” help in classrooms should not be included in the teacher to student ratio. The prep teachers certainly should not be counted in the ratio. Whether or not these “extras” are needed can certainly be a topic of discussion–but not as part of the teacher to student ratio. I hope that makes sense.
C.J.–One other thought: Do Pekin and East Peoria have a comparable number of special ed teachers (and any other kind of “extras”) and students to be counted in the averages? I really don’t care what the answers to these questions are–I would just like to see honesty for a change. I know that during my last couple of years my own class sizes were down in at least two of my classes–but the others were close to or above the average. High school class sizes are always going to fluctuate because of scheduling problems, etc. Primary and middle school class sizes should be more consistent.
More fun playing with numbers, from the historical data in the Interactive School Report Cards:
The cost per pupil in Peoria in the 97-98 school year was $6,953, similar to the state average of $6,682. For the 06-07 year, Peoria’s costs have increased to $11,383 (64% increase since 97-98) compared to $9,907 for the state (48% increase). Stated another way, Peoria’s per pupil expenses were 104% of the state average in 97-98. in 06-07, it is 115% of the state average.
Why might Peoria’s cost have increased so much more than the state over the same time frame? Remember that the #1 cost to the district is employee salaries. Consider the following:
In 1999, District 150 had 15,258 students. In 2008 it had 13,642, a drop of over 10%. Most of that drop has occurred since 2004 – at that time Peoria still had 15,001 students. In the same time frame, 1999 to 2008, while the student population dropped over 10%, the number of teachers decreased less than 1% (from 1087 to 1023). The number of administrators (per the report cards) INCREASED almost 16%, from 70 to 81.
Financially speaking, that’s a pretty bad run over the last 9 years. Oh, and don’t we have some of the oldest school buildings (average age) as a district? So what do we have to show for all that increased expense?
Jon: Just another question. I think District 150 may have an overload of personnel that work “outside” the classroom. How does this number of “extras” compare from one district to another?
I just did a quick (rough) study of my own of Manual (just 9-12–didn’t count 7-8th grades).
Manual has 10 administrators and counselors
6 psychologists, home facilitators, etc.
24 regular division teachers
9 special ed teachers
4 teacher aids
Personally, I think that 16 out of classroom personnel vs. 33 certified teachers–seems top heavy with people that are not in the classroom.
Sharon – You probably received a 2 x 20% bonus, which was given before the 4- 6’s. This meant that if you were making 60k the year before you submitted for retirement, the last two years would have jumped to $72k and then $84k and that your pension would have been 75% of that three year average. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Also, let me know if you know of other professions or companies who offer that arrangement. I dare not comment much because FOS (friends of Sharon’s ) have already tried to suggest that a personal e-mail I shared in response to a question was somehow “negotiating in public” and worthy of a “unfair labor practice lawsuit”. Who trains these people to look to sue at the drop of a hat? Can’t an elected official share what those who elected them have expressed? Jon – thank you for your input, but you’d better clarify that you aren’t my twin – Sharon might “sense” a conspiracy. There are many like you and more numbers who think a critical examination of all facets is long overdue. All cards on the table. Eyebrows – Thank you for jumping in too! Hope all goes well with “flippy”. After July 1st, your comments might be tempered as there are evidently those out there looking for a reason to sue over a discussion that needs to be held.
HA!
Make more in retirement than while teaching… that is beautiful.
Salary of $ 60,000, a couple of quick pre-retirement raises… 75% of 84 is $63,000…
Our teachers are treated SOOOOOOOOOOOOO badly.
Teaching Rocks … I totally agree with you regarding numbers. I’m soooooooo excited to have 28 kids in my kindergarten class next year. (can u hear my voice dripping with sarcasm?)
let’s see … between bathroom accidents, those crying for mom for the first week or so, 20+ sets of untied shoes, teaching the 5-6 who have never been in school how to walk in a line, helping most of them learn to write their name so they can actually put it on a paper and get some work done … hmmmm … there ought to be a whole lot of teaching going on next year!
those who think there are only 12-13 in a classroom are sadly mistaken. this year with 24 it’s been a “busy” year … Any expert in early childhood ed would agree that classrooms with less than 20 are the most effective.
I’d like to see the critics some in and try to corral 28 five year olds all day, and actually impart some knowledge along the way.
In reality – I love my job and I love the kids – but 28 five year olds in one room is not “best practice.” I’d love to see an administrator handle what we will have to deal with next year!
kcdad … you certainly seem bitter about educators in the many comments I’ve read from you on various threads. If you’d like to make the “big bucks” we teachers are making, perhaps you should have gone into education.
Wonder how long you could deal with difficult parents, crying children, extremely disrespectful students, dealing with a wide variety of cognitive abilities (and being expected to bring them all up to a high achievement level), serious behavior problems (and I don’t just mean talking back), the constant push to improve test scores and not enough time to just teach important material that may not be on a test … I could go on and on.
I love my job, I work very hard – and not just the six hours I’m contracted to work. You can ask my family how much work I bring home each night. I take classes to improve my teaching throughout my summers, and I try to do the best job I can to educate YOUR children each and every day.
I think you should quit griping about what teachers get paid and how much they retire on, and start THANKING a few teachers for their commitment to the children, the money the spend out of their own pocketbook for supplies, the countless phone calls to parents outside of school hours, and the sleepless nights they have b/c they are worried about a particular student – their achievement, the type of home they have to go back to each day, neglect, etc.
I just finished my 25th year of teaching – and do you think anyone from the school district acknowledged it? Not even a letter of thanks. Our union provided a nice dinner and a token of their appreciation. I don’t teach for the thanks, and believe it or not, I don’t teach for your approval. I teach because I love the kids and I am committed to helping my students be the best they can be. You should stop your criticism of teachers and their “high pay” (retirement or regular salary). With the amount of higher education that I’ve completed, anyone in the business world would be making 3x what I’m making. get over it …
kcdad … correction … District 150 put the names of the 25 yr teachers in the weekly “Staff News” … guess we were “acknowledged.”
Wow, Jim. If you weren’t before, you certainly are negotiating in public now. I believe you have stated all your opinions about teachers working more hours on this blog–not just in personal e-mails to me. The 2 x 20% bonus is correct. I started teaching in 1962 at a salary of $4,700. Then 5000, 5200, 5800, 6000, 7100, 7993, 9187, 10,845, 11,429, 11632, 11,933, 13,223, 14,258, 14,924, 15,871, 16,826, 17787, 19613, 21096, 22188, 22141, 23915, 24965, 30583 (1987-88 bigger jump because I went up to the masters +15 step), 33005. 37.952, 36324, 37573, 38850, 40001, 42856, 46577, 48,218, 50406, 52758, 58,365, 61830, 79844 (by 2003-04) and I don’t have 2004-05 figure handy. These salaries (during the years when high school was a 7-hour day) include pay for an extra class I taught every day for extra money. In later years, these figures include summer school pay, which finally was accepted toward teachers’ retirement). Your figures for the last three years were accurate (you may even have access to my salary). The two jumps (58,000 and 61,830) were due to college work. I saved the district considerable money by not getting my masters and extra money earlier in my career. Now if you (and all others who think teachers make too much) will provide us with your salary, then I will know how teachers’ salaries compare with other professions (with the same number of years of experience and education). Because quite honestly I have no idea how my salary compares with those of other professions. Maybe we were overpaid (what year would that have begun?). All I know is that every time teachers negotiated a school board voted to approve the contract. Remember, also, that even though they aren’t members of the union, administrators always benefit from our contract–salaries go up the same or higher percentage. Therefore, how anxious do you think they are to get rid of the union? Remember, also, that teachers contributed to their own retirement for many or most of my career. I really don’t know that history–it would be a matter of public record–should I FOIA it, or will you? I have contributed as much to “putting numbers” on the table as I can. Conspiracy??? because I would guess that you were writing under a blog name. Why would that be a conspiracy? I don’t know the identify of very many people who blog–so what? The truth is that you and I are both arrogant enough to want people to know our opinions. 🙂 Did someone suggest that Jon was your twin? I refrained from ever “going there” because I knew that my only reason for thinking that was the name–and I couldn’t keep that from being “filtered” through my brain. Actually, Jon, seems a bit more reasonable. 🙂 However, More Numbers, did sound like you–but two people can express the same opinions. Jim, I think you’re giving yourself too much credit; the unfair labor practice suit had nothing to do with your blogging or e-mailing. It was filed because Ken Hinton raised the class size without negotiating. However, I would imagine you were referring to a speech at the board meeting–I doubt that any suits have been filed against you. Also, please remember that the 2 x 20 was offered primarily as an incentive for early retirement and that the district expected to and did make money from that deal by hiring 1st year teachers to replace the experienced teachers. Also, I understand that there were some disadvantages to the district because of benefits to be paid. Since I didn’t retire early, the district has not had to pay for any of my retirement benefits. Personally–and my fellow teachers will not agree–I have never agreed with early retirement, but then most out there don’t want “old” teachers on tenure either.
“If you’d like to make the “big bucks” we teachers are making, perhaps you should have gone into education.”
If there was someplace that education was actually taking place, I would be a part of it. You aren’t saying that place is District 150 classrooms are you?
I work at one of those education businesses. I am a teacher.
Sharon… so how come teaching for $4700 a year was ok in 1962 when you were new and excited and motivated, but it took $10,000 to get you into a classroom in 1970, $80,000 to get you into a classroom by 2002?
Is that inflation? Or is that going into business? Don’t you think it is time teachers quit playing that “underpaid” card that may have been valid in 1962 but certainly is invalid now?
How much SHOULD a teacher be paid? What should be the cost (to a citizen) to be indoctrinated in public schools by government employees?
“correction … District 150 put the names of the 25 yr teachers in the weekly “Staff News” … guess we were “acknowledged.”
Why should you be acknowledged? You were paid to do a job, right? You signed a contract to do whatever you did for so much money…. right?
If you want acknowledgment, it should come from those people who you had no financial contract with… your students and the their parents. With them you have a social contract. If you fulfill it they will acknowledge you.
kdad – Contrary to what you might think – there IS a lot of educating going on in many District 150 classrooms. Why so cynical? Maybe you don’t do much teaching, but I see the growth my students have made in the last 9 months and I am very proud of their accomplishments.
There are still many GOOD things going on in Peoria’s schools. I have a good relationship with the parents in my room and my students are making great gains. I am satisfied and proud of what has happened in my classroom over the last 25 years. No regrets here.
kdad – one more thing about teacher’s pay …
If you took all the hours teachers worked (both in and out of school) and divided it by their salary, you would be shocked at the “hourly rate.” Your inference that we should not want to increase our salary is just plain silly. What professional in this country doesn’t make significantly more money in 2009 than they did in 1970?
As I said – any professional with a significant amount of higher education and the level of responsibility we have SHOULD be making a respectable salary. Not sure where you’ve been, but it’s costly to raise children, pay for college, run a household and take an occasional vacaction these days. I do not feel one bit guilty about accepting my salary of approx $70K per year. I work hard for the money and put in many hours above and beyond my contractual obligation.
Kcdad: Who said that my enthusiasm for teaching ever had anything to do with my salary? Even when I finally joined the union in the 1980s, my joining had nothing to do with money–everything to do with how teachers were being treated in that era. I guess you weren’t aware that the cost of everything went up from 1962 to 1990. I bought my first new car for $2,000 and rented apartments for under $100. Your arguments are just plain ridiculous. Sorry! All your opinions revolve around your communist philosophies, so every argument as to be communism vs capitalism. At least, others on the blog (including Jim and I) can probably argue as one capitalist to another.
Wow, this has been an interesting read…No, I’m not Jim’s twin – I may even reveal myself soon as I’d like to try and make it to Godfather’s or at least to the board meeting Monday. However, it is my wife who is a bit nervous about that as she is a teacher and I have been vocal about the union. I support teachers, I see how much my wife works and it’s not for a lot of money, but it is what she chose to do. I coach my kids’ sports teams often and know how frustrating that can be and I know that’s not even half as hard as teaching and, oh, it’s only for a couple hours a week at most.
I do want to state something again about the numbers CJ just posted with respect to pupil-teacher ratio and class size. The fact that Peoria’s class size is LOWER than the pupil-teacher ratio makes no sense at all, if you believe, as I do, that every class MUST be taught by a teacher. In trying to make sense of numbers, I often try to make a simple sample to see the interrelation. For example:
If I have 100 students and 5 teachers teaching 5 classes, then I have a 20.0 pupil to teacher ratio and 20.0 average class size. If I had a non-classroom teacher, such that I know have 6 teachers teaching 5 classes for 100 students, I have a 16.7 pupil to teacher ratio and still a 20.0 average class size. In other words, more teachers without classrooms causes the average class size to be LARGER than the pupil-teacher ratio. Gee, that’s the way it works for E Peoria and Pekin.
Of course, if you want to understand the financial impact of it all, then class sizes mean nothing. The only figure that matters is pupil-teacher ratio. See, we could have an average class size of 25.0, which would sound like we’re pretty lean financially, but it’s all moot if the pupil- teacher ratio is 15.0. The point of showing those two numbers is to give you an idea of how much the teaching is done directly to the students in the class room. At the end of the day, from a cost perspective, only the pupil-teacher ratio matters. The classroom number gives you an idea about the quality, not the cost.
Jim: I forgot–remember how I was willing to share my salary with you by giving you spending money for shoveling snow off my car–even when there wasn’t any snow. 🙂
Yeah… I see those students after being certified as graduates. I see how much education they are getting. (not to mention the 20 -40 % that don’t graduate)
“No regrets here.” then why the complaint about not being recognized?
I would not be shocked by the hourly rate… what I am shocked by is the success rate.
Teachers do well with students that would do well on their own or with only a book and a peer beside them. Teachers don’t do very well with the students that really need them.
People get paid what they deserve… right? We earn our pay? Why the increase in salaries 1000%? Were you underpaid before or are teachers overpaid now? Or are they still underpaid? Funny how you can’t even have a discussion about compensation and teaching children in the same breath… money has nothing to do with it, does it? And yet… what is the union and administration arguments always about? teachpia seems VERRRRY aware of compensation issues. You pointed out how the union rules insure that you will continue to receive the same pay for not teaching as you did for teaching… in fact, as an average… much more than what you received for teaching… THAT is capitalism at its best. Your BEST compensation comes from NOT working!!!
(“Any professional with a significant amount of higher education and the level of responsibility we have SHOULD be making a respectable salary”) ha ha ha ha ha
You are so funny teachpia. $70k /year… You call that respectable? Money is respectable? Is that what you are teaching our children… get a job that pays a “respectable” amount of money… that’s how one gets respect in this culture.
Sharon: See how “Capitalism” has infected out thinking?
Sharon… yes, cars and houses are a lot more expensive… instead of 20,000 for a house it is now 160,000. an increase of 8 times. Cars instead of 2000 are 20,000 an increase of 3 1/2 times. (Of course, you also have to keep in mind the resale and trade in values of cars and homes have gone up as well…)
Your salary went from 4700 to 80,000… that’s 17 times as much… inflation doesn’t explain it. Besides, isn’t labor compensated at a rate determined by the marketplace? Aren’t all salaries fair and equal exchanges for labor? (If you agree with that, then you also have to add all of your retirement compensation and other benefits into your figuring of salary to find out what your “labor” was worth.
Kcdad: Why do I argue with you–I know, to keep from doing all the things I should be doing but don’t want to do. I only earned the 50K to 80K salaries for 6 years out of 43–and certainly not in retirement. I have never stated that I was a great or even a good teacher. I’ve never felt that it was up to me to make that judgment call. I worked hard, loved what I did, and hope that I served my students well. Over the years enough of them have given me positive feedback, so I can look back at my career with satisfaction–without which the pay would have been of no importance. Your assessment of teachers and the education system just sounds like sour grapes to me. I am not unhappy with the education I received in 150; many, many people have done quite well in life with the education received in District 150, so your arguments cannot be substantiated. I don’t know what you teach (I have assumed at ICC). You seem to maintain that you and you alone know how to teach–that must be very lonely. You mentioned once that you subbed in District 150. I would assume that was a volunteer job and that you didn’t accept the $20+ per hour paid to subs. What does the trade-in value of a car have to do with anything? I’ve never really traded a car in–I’ve driven them until no one else would have wanted to drive them much less buy them.
As for retirement–I’ll have to wait until I can dig up the accurate information, but I believe that I paid a significant portion of the money put into my retirement fund, so why wouldn’t I expect to be able to receive retirement benefits? Do you also wish to withhold my Medicare benefits from me?
It is sour grapes. (or sour lemons… I am not sure exactly. Only time will tell.)
$80 a day… not $20 an hour. I learned quite a bit about the district during those two years… it amazing what seeing what is going on in several different schools at different levels of the education system does for one’s attitude. I subbed for Kindergarten through high school in at least 12 different schools. Go explain why the district would do that with someone “unqualified” to teach in the district. (I also subbed in other districts… very enlightening. Roosevelt and Manual were my “home”. That is where I got called to go the most.)
The trade in value has to do with the cost of a car. You or teachpia mentioned the difference in what a car cost then compared to now… residual value is a part of that cost.
I think everyone should have medical benefits. Even me.
I am sure you were a GREAT teacher. You certainly don’t have to justify anything to me. You concern about the education of our children is apparent. I just don’t understand why you feel the need to defend the public school system when you have been a part of it for long and know first hand about all the politics and discarding of “problem” children by the administration.
When did it become “just a job” for you? What was the straw that broke the camel’s back for you? When (if ever) did you say to yourself, “I can only teach some of the kids.” When did you realize that Public Education was just another name for a business like Walmart or Caterpillar?
Kcdad: It never became just a job; I never said I can just teach some of the kids. I did say that I can’t teach any of them effectively when discipline problems continue to be ignored. Age did catch up with me for the last couple of years; at 67 I realized that I really couldn’t continue to be an effective teacher and I tired more easily, etc. The administration doesn’t discard problem children. Like all the others who call for change (and it undoubtedly is needed), I have not heard any concrete ideas–and recently asked for them and received no answer–all I hear is educational and philosophical jargon that no one can take into the classroom. Frustrated is probably right–the needs of all types of students cannot be met in the same classroom; we do need to figure out a fair way to offer students what they need–if we can figure that out. Globalization has changed the world of work and, therefore, requires a change in education. As yet, no one has been able to spell that out in practical terms (or lesson plans), especially from kindergarten through middle school.